TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04, reminded me of a joke about the 3 statisticians (no idea how to spell that, or say it for that matter) who were bow hunting.

The first one shot at the deer and missed it three feet to the right, the second shot and missed the deer three feet to the left, the third statistician yelled, "WE GOT IT!"

Glenn

If you are asking if I have gotten a conviction when the DWI was under .08, yes. I have gotten many when they refused to blow.

HankB, my point was if we wanted to set a numeric figure, then there should be an implied consent provision.

Glenn

I guess one could compare Chas. idea with the fact that if a drunk has a car at his disposal, but is not driving it, there is no enhancement of the PI.

Good point on that. I can see the logic, if you are drunk and have a gun, and you are able to control yourself, then why is it an issue?

If you are drunk and you and your gun pose a problem, then drop the hammer. I can see that.

Glenn

And my wife says I'm hard headed.

Glenn

I did not mean a .00 BAC, I meant 0% of the people carrying are intoxicated.

Yes, I disapprove of some of the things that have come about because of MADD.

DWI's used to be much easier prior to all of the ALR paperwork.

Many officers choose not to do DWI's because of the DIC forms they have to fill out, get notorized, print out a copy of the report, reading a copy of the DIC-24 on video to the drunk, send it all in, and then get called in for an ALR hearing that has nothing to do with the criminal prosecution.

More than likely the judge will suspend their DL in the criminal side anyway.

Yall got me off topic again.

Glenn

I'm not saying the DL and CHL would be "attached". Just trying to set up a procedure for assuring a CHL in not intox.

There would be nothing wrong with a goal of 0% intox CHL's out there.

I have to agree w tx on MADD

They have done more to lower DWI arrests/prosecutions in this state than anyone.

Glenn

Chas. I had to start laughing when the lawyer mode came on.

I will say that perhaps it should be the same standard as DWI, and here is why.

A .08 is not needed in order to get an arrest/conviction. If someone has lost their ability to operate a motor veh safely and they are a .04 or above, a DWI can be done.

Here is the deal if you want the standards to be the same as a DWI.

--Implied consent to give specimen of breath.
--Refusals would be handled the same as DL through ALR.
--Arrest based on reasonable suspicion like DWI.

I think the same standard as DWI is really good actually. I mean that seriously. It would set a good base line, but also allow prosecution for someone who is not over the limit, but still has lost the ability to safely oper a motor veh/carry a gun. It would require the the giving of specimen of breath, and allow better interviewing, investigation based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause. It would also protect the guy who chooses to have a couple of beers or glasses of wine at dinner, but still has his wits with him. (A bad choice though IMO.)

Glenn

Glenn